Admin decision regarding egw and tine separation

Milosch 2008-02-26 13:00:48 UTC #1

Since Tine has now violated the press clause in the admin statement from
December at least twice, we have decided to take action in response.
This was done after private discussion with Lars and Conny:

From now on, Tine is no longer part of the eGroupware project. They
have 1 week from today to copy their svn contents elsewhere.
The two eGroupWare developers and project members Lars Kneschke and
Cornelius Weiss are hereby expelled from the project due to their
repeated acts against the project. They have been warned and appear to
have no remorse nor respect for the rules of the project.

The admins - Ralf Becker, Miles Lott, Pim Snel

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

Lars_Kneschke-2 2008-02-27 05:31:00 UTC #2

“Miles Lott” milos@groupwhere.org schrieb:

Since Tine has now violated the press clause in the admin statement from
December at least twice, we have decided to take action in response.
This was done after private discussion with Lars and Conny:
This does not mean, that we agreed on the separation. We are still strongly
against a fork. You can find the chat log at
http://www.tine20.org/skypelogegwexpulsion.html .

We made a very good proposal 2 weeks ago, which got accepted by the majority
of the eGroupWare developers. You can find the proposal and the replies at

http://www.nabble.com/Proposal-for-the-relationship-between-egw1.x-and-Tine-2.0-td15410509.html

I can not see your decision in line with the developers wishes. You are
doing the opposite of what the developers want.

We all made mistakes in the past, don’t add another mistake. Trying to move
us out of the project, does not solve any of your problems.

The eGroupWare codebase still needs a major overhaul. Trying to solve the
LDAP problems in the current eGW 1.x codebase was a major pain, because of
the bad code base.

The eGroupWare project still needs more discussions about development
decisions. We started them and got really valuable feedback.

You can not stop us calling ourself eGroupWare 2.0 again.

You can not stop us telling other people what the problems of the eGroupWare
1.x codebase are.

eGroupWare project, then it solves any. You can ignore all these problems,
but that will not solve them.

eGroupWare had a very unique opportunity to stay ahead of the competition.
phpGroupware had this chance too in the past. Today phpGroupware is
insignificant. eGroupWare will now pale into insignificance soon too.

–
Lars Kneschke
CTO OfficeSpot.Net
Metaways Infosystems GmbH
Pickhuben 2-4, D-20457 Hamburg

eGroupWare Support: http://www.egroupware-support.net
OfficeSpot.Net Collaboration Server: http://cs.officespot.net
our ideas for eGroupWare: http://www.tine20.org

E-Mail: mailto:l.kneschke@metaways.de
Web: http://www.metaways.de
Tel: +49 (0)40 317031-21
Fax: +49 (0)40 317031-921
Mobile: +49 (0)175 9304324

Metaways Infosystems GmbH - Sitz: D-22967 Tremsbüttel
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Ahrensburg HRB 4508
Geschäftsführung: Hermann Thaele, Lüder-H.Thaele

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

Ralf_Becker_6 2008-02-27 09:44:19 UTC #3

Hi Lars,

I already answered your proposal on the core list:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Proposal-for-the-relationship-between-egw1.x-and Tine-2.0-p15425892.html

Though I never received any reply from you or Conny. Only Frank made
some good comments to it …

Or (the admins) decision stands. The constitution gives you the right to
call for a vote about our current decision.

I already wrote, that your proposal is not in line with the (accepted)
admin decision from December. It has now constitutional status and you
need a 2/3 majority, to implement your proposal.

Ralf

Lars Kneschke schrieb:

“Miles Lott” milos@groupwhere.org schrieb:

Since Tine has now violated the press clause in the admin statement from
December at least twice, we have decided to take action in response.
This was done after private discussion with Lars and Conny:
This does not mean, that we agreed on the separation. We are still strongly
against a fork. You can find the chat log at
http://www.tine20.org/skypelogegwexpulsion.html .

We made a very good proposal 2 weeks ago, which got accepted by the majority
of the eGroupWare developers. You can find the proposal and the replies at

http://www.nabble.com/Proposal-for-the-relationship-between-egw1.x-and-Tine-2.0-td15410509.html

I can not see your decision in line with the developers wishes. You are
doing the opposite of what the developers want.

We all made mistakes in the past, don’t add another mistake. Trying to move
us out of the project, does not solve any of your problems.

The eGroupWare codebase still needs a major overhaul. Trying to solve the
LDAP problems in the current eGW 1.x codebase was a major pain, because of
the bad code base.

The eGroupWare project still needs more discussions about development
decisions. We started them and got really valuable feedback.

You can not stop us calling ourself eGroupWare 2.0 again.

You can not stop us telling other people what the problems of the eGroupWare
1.x codebase are.

From my point of view your statement creates more problems for the
eGroupWare project, then it solves any. You can ignore all these problems,
but that will not solve them.

eGroupWare had a very unique opportunity to stay ahead of the competition.
phpGroupware had this chance too in the past. Today phpGroupware is
insignificant. eGroupWare will now pale into insignificance soon too.

–
Lars Kneschke
CTO OfficeSpot.Net
Metaways Infosystems GmbH
Pickhuben 2-4, D-20457 Hamburg

eGroupWare Support: http://www.egroupware-support.net
OfficeSpot.Net Collaboration Server: http://cs.officespot.net
our ideas for eGroupWare: http://www.tine20.org

E-Mail: mailto:l.kneschke@metaways.de
Web: http://www.metaways.de
Tel: +49 (0)40 317031-21
Fax: +49 (0)40 317031-921
Mobile: +49 (0)175 9304324

Metaways Infosystems GmbH - Sitz: D-22967 Tremsbüttel
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Ahrensburg HRB 4508
Geschäftsführung: Hermann Thaele, Lüder-H.Thaele

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

–
Ralf Becker
eGroupWare Training & Support ==> http://www.egroupware-support.de
Outdoor Unlimited Training GmbH [www.outdoor-training.de]
Handelsregister HRB Kaiserslautern 3587
Geschäftsführer Birgit und Ralf Becker
Leibnizstr. 17, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
Telefon +49 (0)631 31657-0

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

Frank-D 2008-02-27 10:13:01 UTC #4

Hi Lars, Hi all,

I was looking forward to an admin reaction quite a long time. I think the separation of both project is really the best way at the moment. Maybe there might be a way not to loose Conny and Lars as project members (which would be great). This of course would require, that the project can trust them, not to damage the egw-project in the public anymore. I think this is not possible at the moment, according to Lars post, he is thinking about claiming the name egroupware2.0 now.
On the other hand I can understand, that maybe he didn’t mean what he wrote and he just wrote this in direct reaction being confronted with this admin-decision. Anyway, imho it’s Lars and Connys turn to show the project can trust their public relation work, if they want to try to stay project members (and persuade the admins to change their decision or even call for a vote).

There has not been any kind of official decision or vote on your proposal. I think even if many developers may like your code, most of them are quite unhappy with your public relations (interview, press releases etc). As far as I am concerned, I don’t know much about your code and I have no problem with it, but I really dislike your way of public relations - not respecting the project rules. Imho many people didn’t want to contribute to the fierce discussion and were waiting on a reaction of the project admins.

Do you really want to use the name without the permission of the egroupware project? So you are just official threatening the project to capture it’s name. You are not serious, are your?

No, unfortunately we can’t. But we can stop you bashing egw as project members - as official tine subproject developers. You won’t be able to give those kind of interviews anymore, being some guys expelled from the egroupware project.
[/quote]

best regards to all

Frank

ManfredU 2008-02-27 10:46:13 UTC #5

Hi Frank,

I found the interview itself not that bad, but I can understand that
the admins didn’t want to tolerate any longer how the Tine folks
overrode the basic rules for the Tine subproject.

Why should they remain project members? They showed that they can’t be
trusted to stick to the agreed rules of the project and they anyhow
stated multiple times that they don’t want to work any longer on eGW
1.x.

I really don’t understand why they deliberately violated the rules so
massively.

Maybe it was their real aim to get expelled. I can see no other reason
why they acted the way they did. Otherwise they would have discussed
the interview in advance with the project admins knowing that
everything else would end in a serious confrontation. Or they are
really very naive…

Manfred

Hi Lars, Hi all,

I was looking forward to an admin reaction quite a long time. I think
the separation of both project is really the best way at the moment.
Maybe there might be a way not to loose Conny and Lars as project
members (which would be great). This of course would require, that
the project can trust them, not to damage the egw-project in the
public anymore. I think this is not possible at the moment, according
to Lars post, he is thinking about claiming the name egroupware2.0
now. On the other hand I can understand, that maybe he didn’t mean
what he wrote and he just wrote this in direct reaction being
confronted with this admin-decision. Anyway, imho it’s Lars and
Connys turn to show the project can trust their public relation work,
if they want to try to stay project members (and persuade the admins
to change their decision or even call for a vote).

Lars Kneschke-2 wrote:

We made a very good proposal 2 weeks ago, which got accepted by the
majority
of the eGroupWare developers. You can find the proposal and the
replies at
http://www.nabble.com/Proposal-for-the-relationship-between-egw1.x-and-Tine-2.0-td15410509.html

There has not been any kind of official decision or vote on your
proposal. I think even if many developers may like your code, most of
them are quite unhappy with your public relations (interview, press
releases etc). As far as I am concerned, I don’t know much about your
code and I have no problem with it, but I really dislike your way of
public relations - not respecting the project rules. Imho many people
didn’t want to contribute to the fierce discussion and were waiting

You can not stop us calling ourself eGroupWare 2.0 again.

Do you really want to use the name without the permission of the
egroupware project? So you are just official threatening the project
to capture it’s name. You are not serious, are your?

Lars Kneschke-2 wrote:

You can not stop us telling other people what the problems of the
eGroupWare
1.x codebase are.

No, unfortunately we can’t. But we can stop you bashing egw as project
members - as official tine subproject developers. You won’t be able
to give those kind of interviews anymore, being some guys expelled
from the egroupware project.

best regards to all

Frank

–
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Admin-decision-regarding-egw-and-tine-separation-tp15689862s3741p15710112.html
Sent from the egroupware-developers mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

Raphael_Alla-2 2008-02-27 10:50:32 UTC #6

Tine2.0 is good because it does not hesitate to break the existing and try
some new ideas and ways of doing things. At the same time, this is the main
issue of Tine2.0 is that it presents itself as egw2.0 rather than as a
playground for issues and ways of doing things to be ported back to
egroupware.

Now, we all agree (I believe) that egroupware must continue to evolve, and
that there are a lot of API improvements that could take place. The idea of
implementing a better way to express models is crucial, a good CRUD
framework is really important for RAD and prototyping, yet these do not
exist at the moment in egroupware.

So how should this be done?

Hi Lars, Hi all,

I was looking forward to an admin reaction quite a long time. I think the
separation of both project is really the best way at the moment. Maybe
there
might be a way not to loose Conny and Lars as project members (which would
be great). This of course would require, that the project can trust them,
not to damage the egw-project in the public anymore. I think this is not
possible at the moment, according to Lars post, he is thinking about
claiming the name egroupware2.0 now.
and he just wrote this in direct reaction being confronted with this
admin-decision. Anyway, imho it’s Lars and Connys turn to show the project
can trust their public relation work, if they want to try to stay project
members (and persuade the admins to change their decision or even call for
a
vote).

Lars Kneschke-2 wrote:

We made a very good proposal 2 weeks ago, which got accepted by the
majority
of the eGroupWare developers. You can find the proposal and the replies
at

http://www.nabble.com/Proposal-for-the-relationship-between-egw1.x-and-Tine-2.0-td15410509.html

There has not been any kind of official decision or vote on your proposal.
I
think even if many developers may like your code, most of them are quite
unhappy with your public relations (interview, press releases etc). As far
as I am concerned, I don’t know much about your code and I have no problem
with it, but I really dislike your way of public relations - not
respecting
the project rules. Imho many people didn’t want to contribute to the
fierce
discussion and were waiting on a reaction of the project admins.

Lars Kneschke-2 wrote:

You can not stop us calling ourself eGroupWare 2.0 again.

Do you really want to use the name without the permission of the
egroupware
project? So you are just official threatening the project to capture it’s
name. You are not serious, are your?

Lars Kneschke-2 wrote:

You can not stop us telling other people what the problems of the
eGroupWare
1.x codebase are.

No, unfortunately we can’t. But we can stop you bashing egw as project
members - as official tine subproject developers. You won’t be able to
give
those kind of interviews anymore, being some guys expelled from the
egroupware project.

best regards to all

Frank

–
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Admin-decision-regarding-egw-and-tine-separation-tp15689862s3741p15710112.html
Sent from the egroupware-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

–
Raphael Alla
Mitija Australia
+61 4 15 678 576
+687 78 86 86
http://www.mitija.com

bones0 2008-02-27 10:55:12 UTC #7

Hi all

As a guy who just wants to have a useful base for adding modules and
selling services I don’t see how it would make sense to fight with words
like “bad” and “good”. That’s just a black and white argumentation, an
exchange of insults, which, IMHO, can’t lead to anything useful. All it
can lead to - and that’s where my concerns get in - is, that the admins
don’t have time and energy left to coordinate the project.

IMHO the egw-code is better than most of the open source projects I have
seen yet (including my own ones!). Is it therefore “good”? Or is it “not
as bad as the rest”? I say it’s “currently good enough”. Of course there
is always room for improvement and it’s completely normal that new
requirements arise which haven’t been part of the original design.

Regards
Peter

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

Lars_Kneschke-2 2008-02-27 11:13:19 UTC #8

“Frank-D” frank.drews@ditf-denkendorf.de schrieb:

Hi Lars, Hi all,

I was looking forward to an admin reaction quite a long time. I think the
separation of both project is really the best way at the moment. Maybe
there
might be a way not to loose Conny and Lars as project members (which would
be great). This of course would require, that the project can trust them,
not to damage the egw-project in the public anymore. I think this is not
possible at the moment, according to Lars post, he is thinking about
claiming the name egroupware2.0 now.
That was a hypothetical question. As long as I’m integrated into the project
I will not use the name, to not upset the other developers. But what keeps
me from using this name, when I’m not a project member anymore?
What keeps me from talking about the technical problems of eGroupWare in
detail, when I’m not a project member anymore?
How does the admin decision improve the situation of eGroupWare?

and he just wrote this in direct reaction being confronted with this
admin-decision. Anyway, imho it’s Lars and Connys turn to show the project
can trust their public relation work, if they want to try to stay project
members (and persuade the admins to change their decision or even call for
a
vote).
No. We don’t need to show anything. We stated very clearly 2 weeks ago, how
we like to work together. And now the time is over. We can’t help eGroupWare
any more.

But moving us out of the project will not solve any of the technical and
organizational problems of eGroupWare.

I wish all eGroupWare developers and users only the best.

–
Lars Kneschke
CTO OfficeSpot.Net
Metaways Infosystems GmbH
Pickhuben 2-4, D-20457 Hamburg

eGroupWare Support: http://www.egroupware-support.net
OfficeSpot.Net Collaboration Server: http://cs.officespot.net
our ideas for eGroupWare: http://www.tine20.org

E-Mail: mailto:l.kneschke@metaways.de
Web: http://www.metaways.de
Tel: +49 (0)40 317031-21
Fax: +49 (0)40 317031-921
Mobile: +49 (0)175 9304324

Metaways Infosystems GmbH - Sitz: D-22967 Tremsbüttel
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Ahrensburg HRB 4508
Geschäftsführung: Hermann Thaele, Lüder-H.Thaele

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

Raphael_Alla-2 2008-02-27 11:43:14 UTC #9

The words bad and good may not be the best chosen.

This said, I share your objective of ‘just wanting to add modules and
selling services’, and I do find that the current API could be improved
because it is so much easier to create a new module when all common
operations are already handled for you. This is not the case in the current
state of phpgwapi - it does not defines data models, only database tables,
and only provides a basic CRUD (through the Nextmatch widget). For BlueERP,
we had to define our own framework for this (called the Entity framework),
which has helped speeding up the development a lot.

Other frameworks such as cake php are a lot more complete in that regards;
of course it does not have the richness of egw: egw already provides a
toolbox that fulfils a lot of the user needs.

Hi all

As a guy who just wants to have a useful base for adding modules and
selling services I don’t see how it would make sense to fight with words
like “bad” and “good”. That’s just a black and white argumentation, an
exchange of insults, which, IMHO, can’t lead to anything useful. All it
can lead to - and that’s where my concerns get in - is, that the admins
don’t have time and energy left to coordinate the project.

IMHO the egw-code is better than most of the open source projects I have
seen yet (including my own ones!). Is it therefore “good”? Or is it “not
as bad as the rest”? I say it’s “currently good enough”. Of course there
is always room for improvement and it’s completely normal that new
requirements arise which haven’t been part of the original design.

Regards
Peter
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

eGroupWare-developers mailing list
eGroupWare-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-developers

–
Raphael Alla
Mitija Australia
+61 4 15 678 576
+687 78 86 86
http://www.mitija.com

Milosch 2008-02-27 11:52:58 UTC #10

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft® Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

Frank-D 2008-02-27 11:54:07 UTC #11

Hi Lars,

If you understand you correctly, you don’t want to use the name eroupware2.0. You just want to say, if you wanted to use the name egroupware2.0 it would be be more easy now, because as no project-member anymore you aren’t bound to its rules.

I wish you all the best, too

Frank